Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description usefully adds the transport and auth requirement: 'GET /vacancies (scope vacancies:read)'. That scope requirement is context the annotations do not convey, though rate limits and pagination semantics are left to the schema.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two tight sentences: the resource and returned fields come first, the optional enrichment and the auth/endpoint footnote follow. Nothing is redundant and nothing could be cut without losing information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the fields returned and the optional includes, and it names the auth scope. Pagination mechanics live only in the schema's next_page hint, so an agent relying on the description alone would not learn how to page through results.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds intent beyond the schema by tying the 'stages' include to a consuming tool (homerun_move_application_to_stage) and by spelling out what the enriched response contains. It does not add format detail for status or page beyond the schema's own wording.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('List job vacancies') plus the exact fields returned (title, status, type, location type, expiry) and enumerates the status values. An agent can tell this apart at a glance from the singular sibling homerun_get_vacancy and from homerun_list_applications, which targets a different resource.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Clearly frames the operation as a list with optional enrichment via 'include', and gives a concrete downstream reason to use one option ('stages ... their ids are what homerun_move_application_to_stage needs'). It never states when NOT to use it (e.g., vs homerun_get_vacancy for a single record), so it stops short of explicit alternatives.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.